There’s a new angle in the campaign to strip you of your rights to defend your self with the Constitutional tools afforded to you. In the wake of the Martin shooting in Florida comes a recent op-ed piece by Tom Brown for Reuters masquerading as reporting the “case” being built for the deconstruction of so called “stand your ground” laws.

On June 5, 2006, not long after Florida enacted the first “Stand Your Ground” law in the United States, unarmed Jason Rosenbloom was shot in the stomach and chest by his next-door neighbor after a shouting match over trash.

Exactly what happened that day in Clearwater, Florida, is still open to dispute. Kenneth Allen, a retired police officer, said he shot Rosenbloom because he was trying to storm into his house.

Rosenbloom told Reuters in a telephone interview this week he never tried to enter the house and was in Allen’s yard, about 10 feet (3 meters) from his front door, when he was shot moments after he put his hands up.

Now living in Hawaii, Rosenbloom said he had been unaware of the growing outrage over last month’s shooting in Sanford, Florida, of an unarmed black teenager by a neighborhood watch captain.

The language in the rest of the article only grows more grotesque. Then again this is the same agency which employs “journalists” to “embed” with insurgents in Iraq then has the audacity to complain when they’re caught in the cross fire.

…we need to ask whether any private citizen should be carrying a concealed weapon, and whether “Stand Your Ground” measures make people trigger-happy. And most of all, we need to think about the most common victims of our lax gun laws: African Americans.

I really wanted to wait till Tuesday to get into the full gun-debate. But you’re right you have been civil, so i’ll give the short answer. I believe that it is provisional amendment that gives people the right to bear arms providing the people are part of the militia. I don’t believe that the militia part being in there is an afterthought, i believe it is a necessary part of the amendment as much as the NRA and some on this board would like to pretend its in there.

Furthermore, the idea that the militia was not a military organization ignores the history of the time and the other three mentions of militia in the constitution that clearly referst to the militia as a military organization and even lays out who should fund it and who supplies the officers.

Furthermore Adam SOME facts indicate the guy is not a racist, some do. That’s why we have juries.

Really…perhaps you should send that sentiment to Rev. Al, Rev. Jesse, the Black Panthers and Luis Farrakhan. I’m certain they would be glad to hear your ideas of moderation and support for the legal system.

After reading the police reports, I don’t see this falling to level of “poor police work”. Based on what was presented in the reports, the fact that Zimmerman was injured, his clothing showed signs that he’d been in a “struggle” or fight, and the statement of a witness who saw the fight, Martin on top of Zimmerman, and said that Zimmerman was the one calling for help, Zimmerman was handcuffed, transported, his weapon taken for evidence, interviewed and released, he could have been held or released. In this case, he was released, much to the outrage of the Justice Bruthas, the NBBP, and assorted others.
This will end up before a grand jury.
Imagine the outcry if they’d arrested him that night, and the grand jury refused to indict him because the case had been rushed, or a judge had dismissed the charges at arraignment.

I believe that it is provisional amendment that gives people the right to bear arms providing the people are part of the militia.

Even if you had the support of Supreme Court jurisprudence on your side (which you do not), the vast majority of State Constitutions dictate that by simply being a citizen of your state of residence, and fall between a certain range of age (it varied between states) you are a member of the state’s unorganized militia. In many Southern states, the law goes even further and mandates that militia members maintain a “service” quality weapon with sufficient ammunition which they are commanded to bring with them when called by the state’s governor.

Nice to see you ignore and deflect the rest of my statement, insipid. But then again, I expected nothing less. Or more.

Oh, and while disgusting, last time I checked, being a racist wasn’t a crime. Nor was being a douchebag, lucky you.

And what happens if Zimmerman isn’t charged with a crime? Or if a jury of his peers finds him not guilty if in fact he is tried (for what remains to be seen?) You gonna riot? Burn down your fucking neighborhood?

I don’t see anything that Sharpton has said that has incited vigillantism. Far from it, he actually told a group to act civily in his speech. There was a noxious tweet from Farakkhan, but that’s still well within legal bounds.

My main complaint of this bill is that it seems to incite vigilantism, as evidenced by the number of justifiable homicides going up 2.5 times from 2005 till 2009, the last time they took data.

insipid–your comments in 103 show just how lacking your knowledge of the military in general and military history specifically truly are.

Tell me, how did one raise a militia in colonial America? Who was eligible or required to serve? When were they not? What was their status vis-a-vis recall or duty when not actively involved in military campaigns? I eagerly await your reply.

@112: The Black Panthers have been putting up “Dead or Alive” posters…a “black militia” group has been putting out press saying they are “ready”…ready for what, I wonder?

My main complaint of this bill is that it seems to incite vigilantism, as evidenced by the number of justifiable homicides going up 2.5 times from 2005 till 2009, the last time they took data.

Where you see vigilantism, I see would-be victims dispensing justice on their attackers. Or maybe you would have liked it better of rapists and potential murderers were allowed to ply their trade and when caught, hope they didn’t get Jose Perez as their lawyer?

@115- but in this case it was Trayvon that was the one stalked. Under your view of “justice” Trayvon’s main fault was that he didn’t have a gun too. That instead of defending himself with his fists he should of fired away.

123–not necessarily. What if I, armed with a weapon, come upon a crime where the perpetrator is committing a violent crime on a third party? I shoot the perp, yet under many state laws, I cannot be charged because I prevented great bodily harm to said third party.

Whoops. Try again.

And if someone has what APPEARS to be a weapon, or attacks me, even if “unarmed”, I have every right to defend myself with whatever means necessary to neutralize the threat. So if Zimmerman was in fact attacked and assaulted, your whole case turns to warm runny shit.

@#116, “i checked he’s under no obligation to explain why he was in a particular neighborhood”. But, apparently, Zimmerman is required to?
Yet again? “don’t you think a person who shoots an unarmed man should be made to prove self defense if that’s what he is claiming”? A defendant doesn’t have to “prove” anything. He can raise a defense, through his attorney. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Under your view of “justice” Trayvon’s main fault was that he didn’t have a gun too. That instead of defending himself with his fists he should of fired away.

While I’m not convinced that Zimmerman is innocent, let me answer this way; if some asshole attacks me, yeah…they’re getting a chest full of 180 grain jacketed hollowpoints. I’m not going to stop and ask if he’s got a weapon of his own. I’m sort of strange that way.

@126- Your first example is not even remotely applicable. In fact in EVERY stste that would be a defense. But you’d still have to make that defense.

As far as your second point, Trayvon was attacked by someone holding a weapon. It sounds like you’re defending Trayvon, not Zimmerman.

Whoops, try again.

As far as an earlier point you made, you’ve got it backwards. If a black man had shot a white man they’d of arrested that black man that night and given him a toxicology test and have had him in jail ever since. There’s no way that black person would be walking free tonight.

In fact in EVERY stste that would be a defense. But you’d still have to make that defense.

Actually, no it wouldn’t. In states like MA, NY, and CA, you have a DUTY to retreat. You cannot stop a violent crime in progress on a third party or on yourself, even on your property. In some states, you are not even allowed to shoot a perp in your home or on your property. You are LEGALLY required to retreat.

Florida law, 776.013, states in regards to stand your ground, “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony”.
776.012 states, “Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

As far as your second point, Trayvon was attacked by someone holding a weapon. It sounds like you’re defending Trayvon, not Zimmerman.

You don’t know that.

If a black man had shot a white man they’d of arrested that black man that night and given him a toxicology test and have had him in jail ever since. There’s no way that black person would be walking free tonight.

@128 up north- I never said Zimmerman is required to explain why he’s in the neighborhood. Someone else questioned why Trayvon was there. Again, self defense in most states is an affimrative defense. You actually have to show, in some way that you were defending yourself. There doesn’t have to be 100% proof positive but you have to give some evidence. Right now the bulk of the evidence points to Trayvon being the one who was on the defensive. Even Claymore seems to be saying that Trayvon would of been justified to blow Zimmerman away if he too had a gun.

Pointing out a racist system is not racist. The reality is that if Zimmerman were a black man he’d of been given a toxicology test and there would not be this presumption of innocence that Zimmerman was given.

Even Claymore seems to be saying that Trayvon would of been justified to blow Zimmerman away if he too had a gun.

That’s an interesting extrapolation, but I suppose if this hypothetical were reversed and Zimmerman were the attacker and the kid had an illegal weapon (seeing as how 17 year olds generally aren’t allowed to carry concealed weapons, much less purchase handguns until 21), then yeah, he’d be justified in protecting his life. Am I convinced this is even remotely the situation? Nope.

@#135, go back and read the applicable Florida statutes. If Zimmerman said that during his interrogation, that’s all he had to say.
And, now, you seem to have done away with the presumption of innocence? Hell, why bother with trials, lets just throw those people we disagree with in prison. Oh, wait………..

Oh, I get it–the system is racist because you don’t get the results you like.

You mean racist like AG Holder saying he wasn’t going to prosecute “his people”? That kind of racist?

The reality is that if Zimmerman were a black man he’d of been given a toxicology test and there would not be this presumption of innocence that Zimmerman was given.

Are you saying Zimmerman wasn’t? Are you saying that because Zimmerman is of mixed race we should assume he’s guilty? Or do we instead base our assumptions on the KNOWN FACTS AT HAND, of which you have perilously few, yet are willing to play lynch mob?

Yeah, I went there, I said it. Lynch mob. That’s what you fuckers want. Blood. And you won’t be happy until someone’s is spilled.

1. The stand your ground law is completely irrelevant here. The stand your ground law only applies if you are attacked. Even Zimmerman’s lawyer admits that it is not relevant.

2. I am not an expert on criminal law in Florida (or anywhere else for that matter) other than the core classes in law school, but if memory serves, self-defense is an affirmative defense. Generally, the defense has the burden of production (i.e. producing sufficient evidence to make self-defense a possibility), but once that burden is met, the burden of persuasion is on the state. I could be wrong.

3. Zimmerman is clearly a world class self-important IDIOT. He called the police because he saw a stranger walking in his neighborhood – that is what Neighborhood Watch does. The 911 dispatcher told him explicitly NOT TO FOLLOW the guy. Once you have called the police and given them a general position, BACK OFF. If Zimmerman had done as he was told, there would be no problem today. What Zimmerman did was reckless.

4. Generally, neighborhood watch or not, following someone in the dark who is simply walking on a public thoroughfare is STUPID. If Zimmerman approached him in the dark, Trayvon had the right of self-defense and could have used force.

5. I have seen no evidence of what transpired immediately upon the two meeting up, or who confronted whom. However, Trayvon was walking back from the convenience store to his dad’s fiancée’s house. Maybe he was a bit lost or maybe he just wanted time to talk to his girlfriend in private. Regardless, he did nothing wrong.

This is not about the 2nd Amendment. Those making a stand your ground argument are being disingenuous. However, while gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it comes with responsibilities. Zimmerman did not act responsibly, leaving the question of whether he would have done as he was told if he was not armed. Zimmerman has the right to be reckless and endanger his own life; but when his reckless conduct results in someone else’s death, there are questions that have to be answered. If the police properly processed the scene, hopefully those answers will come out in the grand jury. If they didn’t, then they are as foolish as Zimmerman because even a blind man could see where the shooting of an unarmed African American teen by a person who was not African American was going.

No, Susan–what the left is going to try to do (as DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has already called for today) is to repeal “stand your ground” laws, and make us all cower in fear when threatened.

If Zimmerman was wrong, he’s going to pay. Hell, he could be 100 percent in the right but because of all the hype and publicity he’s going to be hounded for the rest of his life.

No, the real victims here besides Trayvon are going to be those unable to fend for themselves because criminals aren’t going to give a flying fuck about the law and inflict mayhem upon innocent citizens who had the bad luck of being in the way of the criminals.

Get On Board

Enter your email address below to receive updates each time we publish new content.

Privacy guaranteed. We never share your info.

About thisainthell

We are all military combat veterans and we write primarily from that perspective. Everyone who writes here has a Combat Infantry Badge, a Combat Medic Badge, a Combat Action Badge or a Combat Action Ribbon. We write about issues that matter to combat veterans..read more »